Submitted by Carole Borges on Wed, 2008/03/12 - 11:25am.
If you scan through almost any politican's associations with officials from any number of organizations, movements or boards, you will find moments when they seem to be rubbing elbows with the wrong people. It means nothing. Hillary Clinton has after all a long list of suspicious associations, especially with the group of people Bill pardoned.
Obama will win on the issues and his vision for a better America.
I'm so proud of him for not stooping to spend time waving his hands at these kinds of mosquitoes.
Better he lose than become "one of those"...the type who thinks the red phone ad was brilliant or that he is lucky to be a black man.
I think this says it all...
"Mr. Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and his name is expected to come up only tangentially during the trial."
Submitted by Andy Axel on Wed, 2008/03/12 - 6:17pm.
"Mr. Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and his name is expected to come up only tangentially during the trial."
Sounds a lot like Robert Ray's statement that wrapped up Whitewater...
This Office investigated whether President and Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct related to Madison Guaranty, CMS, or Whitewater Development or had any knowledge of such conduct. This Office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct involving Madison Guaranty, CMS, or Whitewater Development or knew of such conduct. The evidence relating to their testimony and conduct, in connection with this investigation and other investigations involving the same entities, was also, in the judgment of this Office, insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either of them committed any criminal offense, including perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621) or obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503).
Still, we spent $75 million in taxpayer money to get to the bottom of this matter, and we came up with an act of consensual fellatio instead. Mmm hm.
You have to wonder what the RNC is willing to spend to distort the record on Obama like they did on the Clintons. (And see, after 16 years of constant bombardment with this "Clinton is crooked" meme, they have you denigrating them, adopting GOP talking points. Whee!)
Think it won't happen to Obama? The Republicans are just going to join hands and sing "Kumbaya" and they're going to let a scandal with Obama's name tied to it just slip into the void because they'll be so in awe of Obama's purity and transcendent appeal?
Get real. Or, failing that, I can broker you a deal on some Citigroup subprime holdings... I'd love to sell them to you.
As the Clinton episode clearly demonstrated, you don't have to be guilty of any wrongdoing before the GOP will hang you out to dry - all they need is the innuendo. They're keeping their powder dry as of this minute. Why waste it before there's a presumed nominee to slander?
(You should read Susan McDougal's book sometime, or re-read it if you have. The people that incarcerated her for nearly two years, after she refused to sign a scripted implication of the Clintons, then attempting to steer her into a perjury trap, are some of the same people that you believe that Obama can simply rise above, or ignore like so many mosquitoes.)
Better he lose than become "one of those"...the type who thinks the red phone ad was brilliant or that he is lucky to be a black man.
So, cutting through the passive-aggressive façade, we see clearly that you'd rather support a McCain presidency than to "stoop" to support Clinton.
Me, I'd rather support Obama (even though I think he's a carefully manicured snake oil merchant, and people aren't being realistic about what he will and won't accomplish) than to endorse McCain because of my oh-so-easily-bruised sense of principle. Me, I learned my lesson about "sending a message to Washington" after backing Nader in 2000... "some of us" learned from that experience. Let's call them "adults."
(Wow, this passive-aggressive voice is fun!)
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
Me, I'd rather support Obama (even though I think he's a carefully manicured snake oil merchant, and people aren't being realistic about what he will and won't accomplish) than to endorse McCain because of my oh-so-easily-bruised sense of principle.
I certainly don't agree at all that Obama is a "snake oil merchant." However, I do fear that some of his supporters aren't at all realistic about what he can accomplish (Republicans are just not going to join hands and sign Kumbayah with him). The big problem is that is that they may get disillusioned very early in an Obama presidency. That would be a shame.
As for endorsing McCain, I still don't get Obama supporters who prefer McCain to Hillary, but I've given up trying.
Submitted by Carole Borges on Wed, 2008/03/12 - 9:29pm.
(And see, after 16 years of constant bombardment with this "Clinton is crooked" meme, they have you denigrating them, adopting GOP talking points. Whee!)
Why is it that anytime anything is brought up about the Clinton's past, people leap backward and start moaning that you're "using the GOP talking points"?
No. They are my talking points. What are we supposed to have amnesia? Just because some people keep repeating the mistaken notion that they have already been totally vetted are we supposed to not bring up Clinton's own "suspicious" contacts and contributors while her camp and the media keep scrambling to find something that will stck on Obama?
The Clinton's by the way have not been totally vetted. Once they left the White House they've kept things very close to the chest. They won't even release their tax information.
So far Obama has handled the mudslinging and probing with elegance and calm. Today one high level miltary backer of his pointed out THAT is the kind of person we need when the 3 a.m. phone rings.
I would NEVER vote for McCain. I think the Clinton ad was silly, especially seeing her campaign staff didn't even take the time to know that the sleeping child was now grown and working on the Obama campaign. Ah, the irony of life.
The thought that a write-in for Obama might help John McCain sometimes gives me pause, but damn! I truly don't think Hillary is someone we can trust either, so why would I vote for her? Party loyalty? If the Democratic Party counts the Michigan and Florida votes as they stand, I won't have any.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Wed, 2008/03/12 - 11:36am.
Clinton supporters have to do a whole lot of overlooking -- Hsu, Rich, Hillary's brother, etc -- to get righteous about this one.
Maybe they better get back to photoshopping his picture to make him look dark and menacing.
Submitted by Mykhailo on Wed, 2008/03/12 - 6:38pm.
As the Clinton episode clearly demonstrated, you don't have to be guilty of any wrongdoing before the GOP will hang you out to dry
Therfore, we should choose the candidate who's proven over and over to be vulnerable to GOP attacks over the candidate who so far, at worst, has been barely scratched by scandal.
As for endorsing McCain, I still don't get Obama supporters who prefer McCain to Hillary, but I've given up trying.
I don't get Democratic presidential candidates who loudly proclaim that McCain is more qualified than Obama, either.
If you scan through almost any politican's associations with officials from any number of organizations, movements or boards, you will find moments when they seem to be rubbing elbows with the wrong people. It means nothing. Hillary Clinton has after all a long list of suspicious associations, especially with the group of people Bill pardoned.
Obama will win on the issues and his vision for a better America.
I'm so proud of him for not stooping to spend time waving his hands at these kinds of mosquitoes.
Better he lose than become "one of those"...the type who thinks the red phone ad was brilliant or that he is lucky to be a black man.
I think this says it all...
"Mr. Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and his name is expected to come up only tangentially during the trial."
Come visit me at Link...
Sounds a lot like Robert Ray's statement that wrapped up Whitewater...
Still, we spent $75 million in taxpayer money to get to the bottom of this matter, and we came up with an act of consensual fellatio instead. Mmm hm.
You have to wonder what the RNC is willing to spend to distort the record on Obama like they did on the Clintons. (And see, after 16 years of constant bombardment with this "Clinton is crooked" meme, they have you denigrating them, adopting GOP talking points. Whee!)
Think it won't happen to Obama? The Republicans are just going to join hands and sing "Kumbaya" and they're going to let a scandal with Obama's name tied to it just slip into the void because they'll be so in awe of Obama's purity and transcendent appeal?
Get real. Or, failing that, I can broker you a deal on some Citigroup subprime holdings... I'd love to sell them to you.
As the Clinton episode clearly demonstrated, you don't have to be guilty of any wrongdoing before the GOP will hang you out to dry - all they need is the innuendo. They're keeping their powder dry as of this minute. Why waste it before there's a presumed nominee to slander?
(You should read Susan McDougal's book sometime, or re-read it if you have. The people that incarcerated her for nearly two years, after she refused to sign a scripted implication of the Clintons, then attempting to steer her into a perjury trap, are some of the same people that you believe that Obama can simply rise above, or ignore like so many mosquitoes.)
So, cutting through the passive-aggressive façade, we see clearly that you'd rather support a McCain presidency than to "stoop" to support Clinton.
Me, I'd rather support Obama (even though I think he's a carefully manicured snake oil merchant, and people aren't being realistic about what he will and won't accomplish) than to endorse McCain because of my oh-so-easily-bruised sense of principle. Me, I learned my lesson about "sending a message to Washington" after backing Nader in 2000... "some of us" learned from that experience. Let's call them "adults."
(Wow, this passive-aggressive voice is fun!)
____________________________
With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.
Me, I'd rather support Obama (even though I think he's a carefully manicured snake oil merchant, and people aren't being realistic about what he will and won't accomplish) than to endorse McCain because of my oh-so-easily-bruised sense of principle.
I certainly don't agree at all that Obama is a "snake oil merchant." However, I do fear that some of his supporters aren't at all realistic about what he can accomplish (Republicans are just not going to join hands and sign Kumbayah with him). The big problem is that is that they may get disillusioned very early in an Obama presidency. That would be a shame.
As for endorsing McCain, I still don't get Obama supporters who prefer McCain to Hillary, but I've given up trying.
Why is it that anytime anything is brought up about the Clinton's past, people leap backward and start moaning that you're "using the GOP talking points"?
No. They are my talking points. What are we supposed to have amnesia? Just because some people keep repeating the mistaken notion that they have already been totally vetted are we supposed to not bring up Clinton's own "suspicious" contacts and contributors while her camp and the media keep scrambling to find something that will stck on Obama?
The Clinton's by the way have not been totally vetted. Once they left the White House they've kept things very close to the chest. They won't even release their tax information.
So far Obama has handled the mudslinging and probing with elegance and calm. Today one high level miltary backer of his pointed out THAT is the kind of person we need when the 3 a.m. phone rings.
I would NEVER vote for McCain. I think the Clinton ad was silly, especially seeing her campaign staff didn't even take the time to know that the sleeping child was now grown and working on the Obama campaign. Ah, the irony of life.
The thought that a write-in for Obama might help John McCain sometimes gives me pause, but damn! I truly don't think Hillary is someone we can trust either, so why would I vote for her? Party loyalty? If the Democratic Party counts the Michigan and Florida votes as they stand, I won't have any.
Clinton supporters have to do a whole lot of overlooking -- Hsu, Rich, Hillary's brother, etc -- to get righteous about this one.
Maybe they better get back to photoshopping his picture to make him look dark and menacing.
to the scandals of the Bush administration, remember Jack Abramoff ?
I don't think this will cause Obama any major problems...
I don't think this will cause Obama any major problems...
I hope you're right, but I fear you underestimate the Republican smear machine.
As the Clinton episode clearly demonstrated, you don't have to be guilty of any wrongdoing before the GOP will hang you out to dry
Therfore, we should choose the candidate who's proven over and over to be vulnerable to GOP attacks over the candidate who so far, at worst, has been barely scratched by scandal.
As for endorsing McCain, I still don't get Obama supporters who prefer McCain to Hillary, but I've given up trying.
I don't get Democratic presidential candidates who loudly proclaim that McCain is more qualified than Obama, either.
Post new comment